The idea that acid rain is some sort of hoax or scam is ludicrous. Sulfuric acid and its environmental effects have been known since ancient historical times. If acid rain is a hoax, then the ancient Sumerians and Greeks were certainly in on it. Modern science has been accumulating facts about environmental damage caused by sulfuric acid since at least 1736, when sulfuric acid was first produced industrially in Britain. When deniers of anthropogenic global warming claim that acid rain is a hoax they demonstrate, not their knowledge of science, but their political preferences, as here for example.

The chemtrail nonsense is an idea put forward by people who would rather believe a conspiracy theory than the physical laws of the universe. Apparently, some mysterious "they" are putting chemicals in aircraft fuel for nefarious purposes. The less extreme theories suggest that "they" are using HAARP to turn the atmosphere into a plasma, and as proof just look at the pretty colors in the clouds. Perhaps these people live in the perpetual haze of cities and have thus never seen rainbows in clouds.

If a plane is 'pumping out chemicals', other than the normal by-products of clean combustion, then maybe one or more engines need attention. What is more likely, however is that "they" are testing new fuels and new engines. If "they" want to dose the world at large with mind-altering substances they can sell it on street-corners for profit, rather than bribe tens of thousands of people to look the other way while the proverbial man in black puts something in a fuel tank.

There are some people who want you to think that acid rain is a hoax. In their eagerness to "prove" their "theory" ( aka something they just made up ) they generally start talking about how the hoax began in the 1970s or late 1960s. Certainly the term acid rain came into wide use in the 1970s, but the fact of acid rain was known much earlier. When coal is burned, one of the many byproducts of combustion is sulfur dioxide. This combines with atmospheric moisture to form sulfurous acid. That acid, if it combines with water, turns into sulfuric acid. That's the same acid - but much more dilute - which you get in the lead-acid battery.

As an aside I might mention that one of many methods for determining the environmental effects of airborne acid employed a measuring device which utilized the same reaction that damages lead-acid batteries: sulfation. The degree of sulfation of a lead(IV)oxide surface exposed to air for a month is a measure of the corrosive effects of that air. That proxy method was used in the 1930s to measure the effects of coal smoke in Britain.

Political concern in Britain about the damaging effects of sulfuric acid in those words is first recorded in 1855.

Mr. Dillwyn said, ... The cattle referred to had not been injured by the direct effect of the works upon the atmosphere, but by the dew becoming impregnated with sulphuric acid falling upon the herbage, and if they pleased, poisoning it. He only knew that he could keep his horses in much better condition at Swansea than in London.

Mr Lewis Dillwyn, Commons Hansard, July 12, 1855

[my emphasis]

By 1859 Parliament had become more aware of the effects of acid in the environment: Parliament's own home, the then new Palace of Westminster, was being attacked by acids. Following the tally-stick fire of 1834, the rebuilding had been substantially finished by 1860. Even while new construction was still in progress, damage from environmental pollution was extensive: the fall of stone fragments could already be measured in tons.

From some cause or other—either from the effects of the London atmosphere or from some inherent reason—the stone of which the Houses were built indicated a tendency to decay....the question was put to the Treasury whether they would sanction a reference to some high scientific authority, with the view to ascertain, if possible, the cause of the decay, and some effectual remedy against the evil. The result had been a reference to Mr. Faraday,

... 100 tons of lime were now poured every day into the Thames, and he was assured that the influence of this supply would be found very beneficial upon the river. ... With the exception of Portland stone, almost all the stone used for building in the metropolis was subject to decay. ... The subject could not be in better hands than Dr. Faraday's, and no doubt under his care the best chemical protection would be adopted to prevent decay. ... The stone used was magnesian limestone, while the atmosphere of London was impregnated with sulphur and sulphuric acid, which was produced by the use of coal, but he believed a remedy might be found, and the decay of the stone arrested.

Quite apart from his work in increasing our knowledge of electromagnetic phenomena, Michael Faraday performed excellent work in the investigation of the effect of acid on various types of building stones. He was also a champion of action against environmental pollution. His letter to the Times about using white cards in an experiment on pollution became widely known.

The appearance and the smell of the water forced themselves at once on my attention. The whole of the river was an opaque pale brown fluid. In order to test the degree of opacity, I tore up some white cards into pieces, moistened them so as to make them sink easily below the surface, and then dropped some of these pieces into the water at every pier the boat came to; before they had sunk an inch below the surface they were indistinguishable, though the sun shone brightly at the time

Political concern about the effect of acid on Parliament's own stonework notwithstanding, political unconcern about sulfuric acid's precursor - sulfurous acid - was incorporated into law in the Alkali Act of 1863:

"Noxious or offensive gas does not include sulphurous acid arising from the combustion of coal."

By law, sulfurous acid was not noxious or offensive. Does that sound familiar ? The effect of the act was, on the face of the document, to control pollution. The practical effect was to give enterprises a defence in law that they had reasonably tried to comply with the act. This was clearly the intention of Parliament. As one M.P. - who may have had more than an academic interest in the profit motive - said at the time:

"a manufacturer who complied with the requirements of the Act would be in a position to come into Court with a certificate of character and clear himself."

Mr. John Dodson, Commons Hansard, June 2, 1881

The widely cited case of Rylands v Fletcher which had clarified the law on liability, would seem to have been Mr. Dodson's target. Certainly, for the manufacturers of alkali products affected by the act, it did permit a greater pollution nuisance than the common law had previously allowed.

In considering whether a Defendant is liable to a Plaintiff for damage which the Plaintiff may have sustained, the question in general is not whether the Defendant has acted with due care and caution, but whether his acts have occasioned the damage.

The first mention in the British Parliament of "acid rain" in those words, was December 14 1970. Note the passing reference to aircraft.

... we have as a starting point sound, scientific knowledge founded upon research. We need this. We need it, for example, to appraise the real magnitude to the stability of the earth's climate, posed by supersonic aircraft flying in the stratosphere....Our national effort, I believe, is but one element in what must increasingly be a world campaign. Many pollutants know no frontiers. In much of this matter, one nation's out-tray may be another nation's in-tray. We have, of course, heard the allegations that sulphur dioxide going up the chimneys in Britain may be coming down in acid rain over Scandinavia. In any event, we know that the climate of the earth and the equilibrium of the oceans can be materially affected by what mankind discharges into the air or puts into the sea.

Earl Jellicoe, Lords Hansard, 14 December 1970

[my emphasis]

Between 1855 and 1970 there are (in various terms) far too many references to acid rain to enumerate here. What is clear is that despite growing concern over acid rain and general pollution from the burning of coal, nothing was done at a national level until well after the smog of 1952. The reason becomes clear on wading through many years worth of Hansard. In the words of the scientist Arnold Marsh, a refusal to recognize the seriousness of the effects of smoke was because: "statistics are incomplete or not conclusive beyond all dispute." He goes on to say:

This is an example of an unfortunate tendency to be found in other fields, and although it appears to be ultra-scientific it is in fact fundamentally unscientific. In its rigidity and demand for precision and finality it begins to attach more importance to the data than to the purpose for which the data can be used: it refuses to admit the existence of the wood because of the difficulty of enumerating and classifying the trees.

Arnold Marsh, Smoke, The Problem of Coal and the Atmosphere, 1947

In WW2, such smoke control laws as existed were relaxed in an effort to use the smoke, haze and smog to obscure targets from enemy bombers. The laws were enforced once more when it was found that the allies own bombers often had difficulty landing at their own bases.

Arnold Marsh's book collated a wealth of scientific observations about smoke and chemical pollutants from the burning of coal. He showed that enterprises and the national economy could both profit from an efficient combustion of coal which produces less smoke, or none. As we say nowadays: he was proposing a win - win situation. Despite Marsh's book and despite the killer smog of 1952, Parliament did not produce an effective remedy until the Clean Air Act 1956.

In the U.K., and many other countries, smoke and acid rain from the burning of coal is a thing of the past. Unfortunately, we still have not dealt with the problems of chemical hazes due to the use of other fossil fuels. Notably, China lags behind the rest of the world in emissions control. Perhaps Arnold Marsh's book needs to be translated into Chinese.

Acid rain or chemtrails ?

The earliest reference I can find to a claim that it was an aeroplane rather than acid rain which caused a problem is in three newspaper articles from the same day: September 4 1949.

Tilghman, Md, (UP) - State Chemist Henry C. Freimuch absolved military aircraft of blame in the "acid rain" which plagued this island community for 2 days, burning holes in clothing and ruining the paint on cars. Dr. Freimuch blamed the mystery mist on soft coal smoke, combined with moist air. After analysing the acid-eaten paint of an automobile, Freimuch produced this explanation for the strange visitation: "Sulphur tri-oxide from very soft coal with a high sulphur content when combined with carbon particles and moist air forms a sulphuric acid which descended on Tighman." Citizens of this Chesapeake Bay town, whose prinmciple industry is fishing, thought Freimuch's explanation a bit on the prosaic side. J. Harry Fairbanks of the fire department said that before each onslought of the Mist Friday and Thursday a plane had flown over the town. "The plane let out a small cloud which soon grew into a large cloud, and then the tiny drops of rain began to fall," Fairbanks said. Both Air Force and Navy officials denied, however, that any military aircraft had anything to do with Tilghman's searing rain.

Thank you for the very interesting link about cloud seeding experiments.

The author, unfortunately, moves from silver iodide: "One milligram for every cubic mile of atmosphere" to: "Problem is, Silver never disipates. Bury a silver spoon in the ground, it will still be there in 1000 yrs. ", from cloud seeding to woo.

That's a very clever straw man. Silver and silver iodide are two different chemicals. Silver lasts so long in the ground precisely because it does not corrode away as fast as many other metals. Hence it does not pollute so much as other metals. As to silver iodide: at the minute concentrations which it assumes after dispersal it is entirely harmless. Even the people actually handling the silver iodide were not harmed:

Seven cloud seeding operators with extensive exposure to silver iodide
knew of no persons who had experienced any ill effects due to silver
iodide, despite the fact that their hands may have remained yellowed for
weeks.Toxnet.

The first rain-making experiments that I am aware of were circa 1893, using balloons.

May I ask whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture has been called to the highly successful experiments in rain-making which have been carried out in certain parts of America; and whether he thinks it his duty to take any steps with a view to putting an end to the long-continued drought in this country by the adoption of the American method?Mr. Gibson Bowles

The subject has been brought to my attention, but I am informed that the experiments tried in the United States last year were not a success, and that the American Government are not granting any more money for the purpose. If the hon. Member or any other hon. Gentleman interested in agriculture would like personally to make some private experiments in the direction indicated I shall watch them with great interest.Mr. GardnerCommons Hansard, May 11 1893

Later cloud seeding experiments in Britain used calcium chloride. The woo pundits of that era made much of the dangers of 'calcium', much as they had done when salt was added to bread as a preservative.

Some experiments in cloud seeding have recently been carried out from
R.A.F. aircraft in the course of normal cloud flying training. The
experiments were controlled by the Meteorological Office and have taken
place over an area where any positive results might have a practical as
well as an experimental value.Mr Ward, Commons Hansard, November 7 1955

We must preserve a balance in our minds between what is the good that
science can give us and what are its dangers. Let us not be too much
afraid of eating things because they are, or contain, chemicals, or
because they have been preserved. In this island we depend on both for
our existence. Chemicals have their uses: mankind has contrived to
survive through many ages despite a heedless addiction to sodium
chloride. For those of your Lordships whose education was confined to
the classics, let me add that this is another name for common salt.

Fear of chemicals arises from ignorance of their meaning. Take, for
example, calcium salts, added to bread during the war to safeguard
children's teeth. I remember very well receiving a letter from a lady
telling me that her husband was lying in agony on a couch, suffering
from what she described as "stone." She said that it was directly
resultant from the fact that I had been so unwise as to put calcium in
flour. I was very sorry for her, but I had to write back and tell her
that I hoped that her doctor would make a further examination, because I
had only just announced that I was going to put calcium in the flour
and that it would not be in for another two months.

I think you need to check your facts, brotha. There are mountains of evidence, spectroscopic studies, and analysis of actual material fallen to the ground from these "contrails" you so narrowmindedly dismiss as a fairy tale. Lets see how you feel when you have 3 different kinds of cancer in 10 years. BUT everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, right or wroing. Good luck with your ultra-skeptical attitude. Do a little more research next time before you accuse those of us who are unplugged of being nutjobs.

As to doing research: how does all day, every day sound? At least, it often feels that way. The problem is, after doing all of that scientific research, someone comes along and claims superior information which he or she got from a blogger who got it from an air force general's assistant deputy coffee-stirrer's third cousin twice removed.

You have GOT to be kidding - for real? There are enough films, documentaries, reports and, yes, blogs and websites (hello) that demonstrate in a hundred different ways the differences between real and fake clouds, water samples, pilots who participated in chemtrail programs. My god, if you really think Im gonna do the homework for a narrowminded, dumbing down individual you can think again. The burden of proof is not on me, its on the idiots who think whats going is on in our country is normal when the rest of us have been diligent enough to look into these strange goings on which you so loosely call conspiracies to find the truth. Ive done my homework. Do you believe that god is real too? Sorry, but come ON.

I am not kidding, and I am for real. I've looked at dozens of "chemtrails" videos. I've been looking into the "chemtrails" idea for a couple of years now. I've found that it is based on claims that are either provably false or simply unsupported.

The burden of evidence does logically fall on those making a positive claim. If you've done your homework, should be no trouble to provide some evidence.

it is based on claims that are either provably false or simply unsupported.

Well said Belfrey.

Even if I wasn't scientifically literate, I would still insist that you can't dump chemicals, viruses etc. - even blood has been claimed - you can't put them in the fuel or even dump them into a hot exhaust stream without their being fried. Planes used to dump chemicals - as e.g. for crop-dusting or for defoliating as in Vietnam - have chutes to guide the chemicals away from the exhaust streams and the wake turbulence.

Ok - would you agree with the claim that contrails should dissipate within a few minutes as they are primarily water vapor and ice crystals? Can you deny the obvious trails put out by small white unmarked plane after small unmarked white plane so NOT dissipate and instead fan out and last for hours? Can you really honestly say that you havent seen thius happen on a daily basis for days at a time and then suddenly just stop? You dont find it all odd that just about the only planes that do it are small unmarked planes and NOT commercial passenger planes? Im not saying anything that cant be seen with the naked eye here. Its not rocket science dude. Its also interesting that compared to 10 years ago, these trails were seen possibly once or twice a week and thats IF the atmospheric conditions and temperatures were JUST right. Furthermore the little white planes (again - a pair of binoculars will reveal no markings on the planes) anyone can see this. Its not make believe. Why do people refuse to believe anything outside their own little bubble of reality could be true??? All of this IS the evidence. Vapor dissipates, Chemicals do not. It really isnt science at all. Its vigilance. I feel bad for those that think everything is hunky dory b/c they will have the rudest awakening of all. It sucks that we have to deal with this crap and dont get a say as to whats in our air, food, and water.

Danni: "Ok - would you agree with the claim that contrails should dissipate within a few minutes as they are primarily water vapor and ice crystals?"

No, that's one of the main claims behind the "chemtrails" idea, and it is provably false. Contrails can either dissipate quickly, or persist for hours. It's all dependent on atmospheric conditions. Contrails can persist and spread as cirrus clouds when the plane is traveling through air that is low temperature, high RH, "supersaturated with respect to ice". This has been documented for as long as there's been high-altitude air travel, in everything from pictures and books to scientific journal articles.

Here are some examples from the historical literature:

See the 1951 report from Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory to the Office of Naval Research, "Prediction of Aircraft Condensation Trails: Project Contrails". "Contrails of ice particles, the more common situation, will persist for hours if environmental conditions exceed ice supersaturation, i.e., exceed ambient relative humidities of approximately 60 to 70%. When the ambient humidity is less than ice supersaturation, contrails comprised of ice crystals will sublime in seconds to minutes depending on contrail density."http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD692117

Consider the 1970 paper from the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences ("Airborne observations of contrail effects on the thermal radiation budget"), stating: "The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet."http://contrailscience.com/files/1970-AMS-i1520-0469-27-6-937.pdf

See Changnon, S.A. (1981), "Midwestern Cloud, Sunshine and Temperature Trends since 1901: Possible Evidence of Jet Contrail Effects" in the Journal of Applied Meteorology: "Records of monthly sky cover,﻿ sunshine and temperature for 1901–77 in a 10-state midwestern area were analyzed on a temporal and spatial basis to discern long-term trends and indications of shifts potentially due to added cirrus generated by jet aircraft since about 1960."http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0450%281982%29021%3C194...

Check out Petzold et al. (1998), "Elemental composition and morphology of ice-crystal residual particles in cirrus clouds and contrails" in the journal Atmospheric Research. Sampled directly from contrail cirrus﻿ - they found only ice, with elements expected from jet engine exhaust.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809597000835

There are of course many recent papers, as you can see if you do a Google Scholar search for "persistent contrails". For example Haywood et al. (2009), "A case studity of the radiative forcing of persistent contrails evolving into contrail-induced cirrus", which states: "Under certain atmospheric conditions (supersaturated with respect to ice), contrails can persist for several hours. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable for ice crystal growth these persistent contrails may grow and spread out to form contrail-induced cirrus clouds."http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012650/abstract

Danni, you do realize that natural clouds are made of condensed water vapor, right? Persistent contrails are essentially artificially-induced cirrus (ice) clouds, and they persist for the same reasons that natural cirrus clouds do.

Danni: " You dont find it all odd that just about the only planes that do it are small unmarked planes and NOT commercial passenger planes?"

Actually, many chemtrails believers have been using websites likely flightradar24.com to track planes leaving trails, and finding that they are generally commercial airliners. In fact, G. Edward Griffen, co-producer of "What in the World Are They Spraying", has led a team of volunteers to identify planes leaving trails using such sites, in addition to using telescopes and photography. He now says: "There is no one more concerned over the toxic effect of chemtrails and no one more dedicated to exposing the truth about them than I am. However, there is no longer any doubt that almost all of the chemtrails are coming from commercial flights with passengers aboard. How do we know that? Because a group of volunteer sky-watchers from all over the world have tracked them on plane-tracking software that provides real-time data. I have done this myself in my home area. It is possible to find out just about everything there is to know about those planes, including type of aircraft, who owns it, the flight number, point of origin, destination, altitude, speed, estimated time of arrival, etc. A very small number are unidentified, which simply means they wish to remain excluded from the tracking software. They include military, scientific, corporate, and private planes. But the important point is that at least 90% of the planes spewing out persistent trails are commercial flights."
See: http://www.realityzone.com/20130510.html

A pair of binoculars generally won't be powerful enough to make out much detail of a plane at 30,000 ft+, but there are hobbyists known as "contrail spotters" (a subset of "planespotting") who use better equipment to take nice, clear pictures of planes leaving trails - again, generally showing commercial airliners. See for example http://www.flickr.com/groups/contrailspotting/

One of my articles in preparation is about the invention of the hygroscope. It was developed from the common observation that water in the atmosphere will condense on any cold surface. This effect had been noticed by balloonists whose chilled champagne bottles would become covered in moisture as they ascended, under specific conditions.

The key as to whether a vapor trail will linger or not is the relative humidity of the air at the specific altitude. Water vapor, like a balloon, will go where the wind takes it. If there is no, or little, wind at the altitude of a vapor trail then the only thing left to make it disappear is the heat of the sun and the relative dryness of the air in combination. If the atmosphere is already as moisture-laden as the vapor trail then it will have 'nowhere to go'.

Nobody finds it remarkable that a cloud bank may linger overhead for many hours and sometimes more than a day. It is for proponents of the chemtrail theory to show why a vapor trail need not obey the same laws of physics as a cloud, since both consist primarily of water droplets and ice crystals. Water vapor is invisible. Watch a boiling kettle or an old railway engine letting off steam. You will see a gap between the kettle and the cloud of water droplets. That gap is filled with steam. You can see the same gap between a plane engine and its contrail. The length of the gap increases with decreasing atmospheric humidity.

"would you agree with the claim that contrails should dissipate within a
few minutes as they are primarily water vapor and ice crystals?"

??? Wouldn't be much point in crop-dusters if chemicals didn't dissipate.

Furthermore the little white planes (again - a pair of binoculars will reveal no markings on the planes) anyone can see this.

What would be the point? These planes will still be tracked by radar among numerous air traffic control pathways, and have a required transponder signal. Even stealth fighters send out a transponder signal and radar cross-section when they are not flying combat missions.

More importantly, what kinds of markings are you looking for? The only one that is required is the tail number, which isn't clear whether you would see it or not depending on your vantage point.

Or cloud seeding or fog dispersal apparatus. Common knowledge among meteorologists having to do with airports: ground-based apparatus disperses silver nitrate* upwards to clear fog. It's a follow-on to the FIDO studies.

* the stuff that is so entirely un-toxic that it is often used as an ingredient in printer ink.

I have a number of snippets of information relating to meteorology which I hope to use in future articles. On checking those resources I find that when the acid rain fell on Tilghman the US Army Corps of Signals was conducting rain-making experiments.

William Thomas, self-styled "award-winning journalist" that nobody ever heard of is encouraging people to swamp legislators with silly sky-pix.

See something in the sky that doesn't look right? Something outrageous? Something that bothers you?

Date:

03-30-13

Host:

John B. Wells

Guests:

William Thomas, Michael Murphy

In the first half of the program, investigative journalist William Thomas joined John B. Wells to reveal a correlation between chemtrails, electromagnetic radiation and human health. For some time now the military has been spreading barium in the sky in order to bounce military radio and radar beams, as well as HAARP, over the horizon, Thomas explained. This ‘aerosol project’ has been confirmed by two scientists at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, he noted. Evidence of barium fallout can be found on rainy days in the soapy runoff seen along roadways, Thomas added. These chemtrails not only interfere with weather patterns but also amplify the harmful effects of radio frequency and microwave exposure, he said.

“Chemtrails give us a toxic exposure and barium-boosted wireless radiation inhibits our body’s ability to compensate and respond,” Thomas continued. Dosage is cumulative over time and can cause numerous symptoms, including aching joints, asthma attacks, headaches, sudden dizziness, rashes and sores, gastrointestinal discomfort, persistent cough, inability to concentrate, a willingness to believe that the Titanic never sank, that we never landed on the moon, that J.F.K. demolished the WTC from Hitler's secret base in the Antarctic, that scientists have conspired to invent AGW and the report of this meeting is being hijacked for purposes of satire.

what a large waste of time this author created. He lost me when he wrote "The chemtrail nonsense is an idea put forward by people who would rather believe a conspiracy theory than the physical laws of the universe". I knew right then and there that this was a bogus article, most likely written to mislead the masses.

Geo-engineering and chemtrails and Haarp are all reality, so for this fool to write what he did, it's just a waste of time really.

If every commercial plane is dumping stuff for nefarious purposes, then it isn't likely to be the US behind it all. And if it's the illuminati, why are they attacking Canada and the US, and how did they con so many millions of people to go on a plane trip all at the same time? Here is an image showing commercial air traffic over US and Canada at the time of writing this.

It looks as though this over 1000 year old, Chinese Giant Buddha of Leshan is following in Father Thames acid rain drenched footsteps, his 'nose is turning black, hair curls have fallen from its head and its reddish body is becoming a charred grey colour'. According to this NDTV report referencing a China Daily newspaper article called 'Acid Rains Make Life Hard in 258 Chinese Cities' :-

Beijing: China, the world's largest consumer of coal, is paying a heavy price for its rapid development, with 258 of its cities experiencing acid rains due to excessive emission of sulphur dioxide, causing health hazards and damage to buildings and scenic spots, according to official statistics.

"Official statistics show every drop of rain in Xiamen in the first half of 2010 was acidic, recording pH levels of less than 5.6 (neutral is 7)," Zhuang Mazhan, chief engineer at Xiamen's Environmental Monitoring Central Station said.

"The acid rain is leaving buildings with yellowish signs of corrosion... and is slowly turning the leafy island yellow. It's making the city much less attractive," he told state-run 'China Daily'.

The rain is also ruining the giant Buddha statue, the largest in the world."Leshan Giant Buddha, which has stood in southwest China for more than 1,000 years, has also been badly affected. Its nose is turning black, hair curls have fallen from its head and its reddish body is becoming a charred grey colour," the daily said.

The 71-metre high and 28-metre wide statue, which was carved out of a cliff during Tang Dynasty (AD 618-907), had survived floods and earthquakes, but it was now at a greater risk from the man-made threat, it said.'

The places significantly impacted by acid rain around the globe include most of eastern Europe from Poland northward into Scandinavia, the eastern third of the United States, and southeastern Canada. Other affected areas include the southeastern coast of China and Taiwan.

I wonder why China hasn't signed any of the International treaties to help cut back man-made acid rain pollution, especially as the same 2011 article above said that 'Chinese officials say that the government is aggressively pursuing its promises made in late 2009 to cut the intensity of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP in 2020 by 40 to 45 per cent, compared with 2005 levels.'

'China is also committed to increasing the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15 per cent to have 40 million more hectares of forest by 2020.'

'Despite the Chinese government's pledge to rely more on renewable energy sources, Wang Xianzheng, President of the China National Coal Association, recently projected that the annual coal consumption will reach 3.8 billion tonnes by 2015, an increase of 800 million tonnes compared to 2009.'

"If a plane is 'pumping out chemicals', other than the normal by-products of clean combustion, then maybe one or more engines need attention. What is more likely, however is that "they" are testing new fuels and new engines. "

Can you provide specific examples of the new fuels and new engines that you believe are maybe being tested? Or will you look into this point further to provide clarification and blog about this in the future as a follow up to this article?

I apologise for not making the citation in the article more prominent. The link under the image takes you to a NASA page.

NASA researchers have begun a series of flights using the agency's DC-8
flying laboratory to study the effects of alternate biofuel on engine
performance, emissions and aircraft-generated contrails at altitude.

The Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise Emissions (ACCESS)
research involves flying the DC-8 as high as 40,000 feet while an
instrumented NASA Falcon HU-25 aircraft trails behind at distances
ranging from 300 feet to more than 10 miles.